Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

ravi_g wrote:RajeshA ji, request you not to bring AAP into this thread. AAP is a party for sale, full of spies and knaves. There is no reason why BJP cannot buy it, would we then defend it? This momentary politics cannot provide the basis for something important. Politics has to play a part (6 months in a 5 year cycle) and that is it. Not being whole (in AAP's case not even a genuine standpoint), bringing a fake entity like AAP here would deviate this thread. Bharatiyata is a function of Desh and Dharm not of the accumulated learning of different forms of lies.

AAP is not the issue here, nor it needs to be discussed here. Issues in the two posts were

Please pay attention to the wording "Traitor to the Qaum, Salman Khan". The protest is for Salman Khan meeting Narendra Modi. That's what it says on the poster.

The interesting thing about the message is not that some Muslims are protesting, but rather that Muslims consider themselves as a Qaum, a Nation of Islam, based on solidarity. Now these Muslims are not angry at Salman Khan for not abiding by some religious custom or obligation. Salman Khan is not being called a Munafiq, a non-observant Muslim. No they bring out the word "traitor" and one is a "traitor" to a group and its cause.

The Muslim Identity is a parallel identity to #Bharatiyata and it cannot be reconciled with it.

"The Idea of India" as propounded by secularists is to completely do away with the notion of "nation" and to only retain "state" for only as a "state" can India integrate both Muslims and Bharatiyas within it as "citizens". That is the reason why Indian state has been on a continuous mission since its inception to undermine the national and indeed the civilizational aspect of India - the Bharatiya Sabhyata, the glue, besides the raw state power, which keeps Indians together.

All the secular political groups in India as such treat Indians not as Bharatiyas, but as either group interests or as "citizens".

Now some may say that that should suffice, but it doesn't, because a state which is not based on the foundation of a nation, doesn't really have much respect either for itself or for its citizens. The sanctity of the contract between the State and the citizen derives from the respect a Nation has for its nationals. The State-citizen contract means nothing unless one talks about the source of sanctity of this contract. Those who propound the "Idea of India" have no idea what should be the source of this sanctity.

For all practical purposes, when the issue of "religion" comes up, the seculars treat it as if they are speaking of "Dharmic Bhaktipanths", which in terms of Raj Dharma should all be treated the same without any fear or favor - sarva dharma sama bhava. This however is only a way of duping Indians.

So it is important that others understand the difference between "religion" and a "bhaktipanth".

Religion is a brotherhood claiming to be divinely sanctioned, making exclusivist claims of universalism, with authority vested in those acting as guardians of theology and dogma around the divine sanction, pursuing a sociopolitical agenda.

Bhaktipanth is a collective though non exclusivist pursuit of spirituality, philosophy, mythological reenactment, ritualized symbolism and devotion, in abidance with Dharma, often under the guidance of a founding traditional lineage.

A religion is not the same as a Dharmic Bhaktipanth. A religion creates a separate national identity. A bhaktipanth does not.

The separatist, secessionist, segregationist tendency among Muslims in the Subcontinent comes not from some different Islam-based eschatological opinion but from the Muslim identity itself.

Its mythology over ideology for the Communist party of India as a survival strategy. Left staring at a rapidly shrinking support base, and unable to attract the new generation of voters, the Communist Party of India (CPI) is turning to the power of Hinduism to stay relevant.

Today, a three-day seminar begins in one of the last red bastions in the country which will focus on the “power of the past”. The Kannur meet—aptly called Bharateeyam—will have stalwarts studying the past to seek answers for the future.

For the first time in the history of any Left party, sessions will be held on traditional Indian knowledge systems, Indian philosophy and culture. Also on the agenda are detailed discussions on Vedic and pre-Vedic periods and the Upanishads.

The seminar, which will be attended by academics and Vedic experts from across the country, will have separate sessions on Vedanta, Indian Philosophy and Thoughts, Relevance and Significance of Upanishadic Literature and Indian Knowledge Systems.

“Vedic literature forms a wonderful monument of literary wealth handed over to us by our ancestors…” begins the brochure for the seminar. {Say what? You mean its not a savage tribal triumph by TFTA "aryans" over SDRE "dravidians?} And the stated objective of the meet is to “popularise ancient authors and their thoughts to the new generation without any prejudice.”

While one may, out of habit, associate these topics with right-wing politics and ideology, one need not anymore if one goes by the CPI argument.

“Vedas and Upanishads are part of our collective past. Why should we let the RSS hijack it? We all have lessons to learn from these ancient texts,” said a CPI leader when asked about the apparent incongruity in the topic of the seminar and the tenets of Leftist ideology. Organised on behalf of a trust named after late CPI leader N E Balram, the seminar is being attended by politicians and academics from across the country.

“Other Communist parties may agree or disagree, but it is a fact that no Left party can survive in India without acknowledging India’s collective past and traditions,” the CPI leader added for good measure. {One more small step towards Hindutva occupying both sides of the aisle?}

Going a step further, the brochure proudly declares that CPI leaders like Veliyam Bhargavan and K Damodaran are “scholars of Vedic literature and classic Sanskrit.”

Interestingly, the seminar is being held at a time political parties are still recovering from the after effects of the AAP phenomenon in Delhi and elsewhere. CPI in particular has reasons to worry as its senior leader and National Council member Kamal Mitra Chenoy recently joined AAP. While quitting CPI he said: “Either we can say people are stupid or we are behind times.”

Avarachan wrote:Hi RajeshA, I just read your linked post. I'm familiar with this argument, but I disagree with it. Please keep in mind that the Oriental Orthodox Churches (of which the Indian Orthodox Church is one) have a different view of church-state relations that many other Christians. The Oriental Orthodox sharply disagree with the Protestants and Catholics, and we even disagree with the Eastern Orthodox regarding church-state relations. The Egyptian/Coptic Oriental Orthodox and the Syriac Oriental Orthodox deeply resented Byzantine imperial rule over them. The Copts and the Syriacs said that the church should not get entangled with the affairs of the state. This is not some 20th-century development: the Copts and the Syriacs were saying that back in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. It was one of the factors in the Oriental-Eastern Orthodox split in 451 A.D., at the Council of Chalcedon.

I'm not going to get into a religious discussion here on BRF, but I did want to respond to your post regarding religion and politics. Anyway, I'll be busy with work for the next several days, so this will be the last post from me regarding this topic. Cheers! By the way, your posts regarding the AAP are very good.

I'll be grateful if you could point to any literature which supports this claim. As far as Wikipedia goes, it seems the split was based more on doctrinal differences.

It would be good if you could post any comments, observations or references to the view of the Syriacs in India on conversion, integration with "Hindus", separate identity, dependence on Antioch, politics, etc. Would like to learn more.

Avarachan wrote:Hi RajeshA, I just read your linked post. I'm familiar with this argument, but I disagree with it. Please keep in mind that the Oriental Orthodox Churches (of which the Indian Orthodox Church is one) have a different view of church-state relations that many other Christians. The Oriental Orthodox sharply disagree with the Protestants and Catholics, and we even disagree with the Eastern Orthodox regarding church-state relations. The Egyptian/Coptic Oriental Orthodox and the Syriac Oriental Orthodox deeply resented Byzantine imperial rule over them. The Copts and the Syriacs said that the church should not get entangled with the affairs of the state. This is not some 20th-century development: the Copts and the Syriacs were saying that back in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. It was one of the factors in the Oriental-Eastern Orthodox split in 451 A.D., at the Council of Chalcedon.

I'm not going to get into a religious discussion here on BRF, but I did want to respond to your post regarding religion and politics. Anyway, I'll be busy with work for the next several days, so this will be the last post from me regarding this topic. Cheers! By the way, your posts regarding the AAP are very good.

I'll be grateful if you could point to any literature which supports this claim. As far as Wikipedia goes, it seems the split was based more on doctrinal differences.

It would be good if you could post any comments, observations or references to the view of the Syriacs in India on conversion, integration with "Hindus", separate identity, dependence on Antioch, politics, etc. Would like to learn more.

RajeshA-ji, thanks for your kind response. Can you email me? An Internet forum is not conducive for conversing about complex, potentially controversial topics. Also, an Internet forum is not a good repository for information, in my opinion ... Many good posts get lost amidst the clutter. Thanks.

Dr. Kapil Kapoor highlights the importance of Sanskrit in education of India. He claims that how downplaying the importance of Sanskrit has de-intellectualized 'educated' Indians. How their vocabulary has been forced into hibernation by the vocabulary of west. He laments that how India has fallen into a receiver-donor relationship with the western academia, a relationship of intellectual subordination.

Shri Banwari talks about how three sacred cities of India -- Kashi, Mathura and Ayodha represent three deeper values of Knowledge, Wealth and Valor in Indian Civilization and their place in it. He says that how these three cities and their representative virtues can be found wherever influences of Indian civilization existed including South East Asia. He also emphasized significance of these three sacred cities in shaping ethos and core values of India for thousands of years

Madhu Kishwar talks about position of women in Indian civilization. She shares various examples of prominent Indian saints, queens and scholars. She tells about influence of these feminine role models on millions of Indian women. She also talks about goddess worship in India and its influence on raising position as well as respect of women in India. She claims that freedom & diversity in society stems from polytheism; worship of many gods and goddesses.

Dr.J.K.Bajaj shares religious demographic data of India of last one hundred years. He speaks about how religious demography plays a defining role in shaping destiny of country. He explains how growth rate of population belonging to various religious members have larger impact on culture of country. He claimed that partition of India happened only because of religious conflicts. Riots across the country also happen due to conflicts of religion. He shares data of growth rate of Muslims, Christians and Hindus and how it will affect society, culture, and polity of India in coming times.

It seems the term was popularized by Persians, for that was the way they referred to all around "Sindhu" river and beyond to the East.

If Indians like Ashoka used the term, then possibly to tell Persians, about the people he was talking about, as Persians may only have understood the people of "Sindhu" and beyond in the East as "Hidu" or "Hindu". For example, if an Indian were to tell somebody in the West, that he comes from Bharat, that he is a Bharatiya, they may not understand him. So for their convenience, he would say "Indian".

If Central Asian Turks, Chinese, Arabs, started using the term "Hindu" then that too after assimilating it from Persians.

So for Hindus, the best way to understand the term is in the context in which the term was wholeheartedly embraced by Vijayanagara and Maratha Empire as a banner of resistance to the Islamic rule in India.

If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing . . . In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink.

Religious Foundational Differences and Rivalries:

A state wanting to be secular has to first ask the question, are all religions are of the same kind, but the following would tell us that Hinduism is not a 'religion' like other semitic one for the following reasons :In the second of the multi-volume Historia Religionum, an Indian, talking about Hinduism, says that:

Hinduism can hardly be called a religion in the popularly understood sense of the term. Unlike most religions, Hinduism does not regard the concept of god as being central to it . . . Hinduism does not venerate any particular person as its sole prophet or as its founder. It does not . . . recognize any particular book as its absolutely authoritative scripture.

Similar thoughts occur in a handbook written by experts in the area, aimed at a more general public:

Hinduism displays few of the characteristics that are generally expected of a religion. It has no founder, nor is it prophetic. It is not credal, nor is any particular doctrine, dogma or practice held to be essential to it. It is not a system of theology, nor a single moral code, and the concept of god is not central to it. There is no specific scripture or work regarded as being uniquely authoritative and, finally, it is not sustained by an ecclesiastical organization. Thus it is difficult to categorize Hinduism as ‘religion' using normally accepted criteria.

Historically to a Hindu, Semitic religions were never rival religions nor were the people of other religions were considered on religious lines nor did the hindus hold semitic religions to be false. This means that Hindus refused to accept falsity of either their religion or any other, while the converse was never true wrt to semitic religions.

For semitic religions, their religion revolves around truth of its doctrine, while hinduism holds that truth and falsity predicates don't apply to human traditions. And that there are no false Gods but different deities. Because of this self description, semitic religions hold that theirs is the true religion, while others are false and the God has a plan revealed through their religious doctrine alone. All other religious traditions are thus nothing but the attempts of the false god to deceive the gullible and to corrupt the true religion.Thus, the Semitic view has it that religion revolves around the crucial question of the truth and falsity of a set of doctrines. For Hindu followers, the traditions followed by humans is unsettled, they argue that, truth in human traditions does'nt make sense, a westerner might wear trousers and pants, that is his tradition and it doesn't make sense to call this tradition true or false, it need not hold true for all humans for example.

Therefore if one supports conversions, it only means that one is converting from something false to something true.Consequently, the secular state that allows for the possibility of conversion is compelled to choose between the following: (a) both the Hindu traditions and the Semitic religions are epistemic candidates with respect to truth and falsity; or (b) they are not.

The Semitic self-description contains a universal truth claim, which gives rise to a dynamic of proselytization. The pagan view, on the contrary, implies that every ‘religion' is a tradition—that is, a specific set of ancestral practices—characterising a human community. The traditions are upheld not because they contain some exclusive truth binding the believer to God, but because they bind a community together. Any attempt at interfering with the tradition of a community from the outside will be seen as illegitimate, since all traditions are part of the human quest for truth.

On the question of Right to Proselytize and Non-interference, and Choices before the state:

Consider the situation in India. Say a citizen x is a Hindu who endorses the pagan claim that all traditions are part of a human quest for truth; while citizens y and z are a Muslim and a Christian respectively, who believe that their religion is the true revelation of (the biblical) God, while all other ‘traditions' are false religions. The value of non-interference is central to the tradition of citizen x and it is unethical for him to allow Muslims and Christians to interfere in the traditions of human communities. Thus, he opposes conversion. At the same time, the value of proselytisation is central to the religions of citizen y and z.

How can the Indian state be neutral with respect to the attitudes of the citizens x, y and z? Either the state agrees with citizen x that ‘religion' is a human quest, no ‘religion' could be false, and, therefore, bans conversion; or it will have to agree with citizens y and z that religions could be the revelation of (the biblical) God, therefore, some ‘religions' could be false, and thus allow for conversion. In other words, the secular state has to choose between the following two premises: (a) no religion could be false or (b) some religion(s) could be false. There is no neutral ground between these two logically exclusive premises.

Let us now summarize the four choices the Indian secular state has to make. (a) The ‘Hindu traditions' and the ‘Semitic religions' are phenomena of the same kind, or they are not. (b) As such, they are religious rivals, or they are not. (c) As rivals, they compete with each other regarding truth or falsity, or they do not. (d) They can do that because some religion is false, or they cannot because no religion is false.

Choices of State Neutrality before India and on the question of is India secular:The post-independent Indian state implemented a series of reforms to ‘the Hindu religion and its law’, while it did not interfere with Islam and Christianity.24This suggests that some interpretation of ‘neutrality’ and ‘liberalism’ is at stake here.

Andrew Mason formulates an often made distinction between two kinds of stateneutrality as follows:

i. Neutrality of Justification: :Neutrality of justification requires that the state should not include the idea that one conception of the good is superior to another as part of its justification for pursuing a policy.

This option is not available because (a) the choices of the state are logically exclusive and (b) the state cannot play the agnostic.

ii. Neutrality of effect: In contrast, requires that the state should not do anything which promotes one conception of the good more than another, or if it does so, that it must seek to cancel or compensate for these differential effects.

John Rawls, suggests that neutrality might mean any of the following:

(1) that the state is to ensure for all citizens equal opportunity to advance any conception of the good they freely affirm; (2) that the state is not to do anything intended to favor or promote any particular comprehensive doctrine rather than another, or to give greater assistance to those who pursue it; (3) that the state is not to do anything that makes it more likely that individuals will accept any particular conception rather than another unless steps are taken to cancel, or to compensate for, the effects of policies that do this.

The framers of the Indian constitution took over the theory of the liberal state as it emerged in the West and tried to transplant it into the Indian soil. In the process, they also endorsed the theological claim that religion is an issue of truth. While such a stance makes sense in a culture where the problem of religious tolerance arises because of the competing truth claims of the Semitic religions, it does not in another cultural milieu where the pagan traditions are a living force. Consequently, the Indian state is subject to contradictory demands.When it legislates in favour of religious conversion, the Indian state cannot live up to the first two principles of neutrality of aim. This policy promotes ‘the comprehensive doctrine' or ‘conception of the good' of the Semitic religions at the expense of the Hindu traditions by making the four choices that correspond to the Semitic view. This leaves the third option of neutrality of effect. But this, Rawls claims, is ‘an impracticable aim', because

it is surely impossible for the basic structure of a just constitutional regime not to have important effects and influences on which comprehensive doctrines endure and gain adherents over time, and it is futile to try to counteract these effects and inﬂuences, or even to ascertain for political purposes how deep and pervasive they are. We must accept the facts of common-sense political sociology

The Secular State is it possible? :The Indian state has made provisions in its constitution about the freedom of religion that includes the issue of conversion: Article 25 of the Indian Constitution states that ‘all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion’. This has generally been interpreted to mean the following: ‘. . . [I]n the context of secularism and religious pluralism conversions are legitimate, well within the Constitutional provisions, and entirely a personal affair of the citizens'.27 From this it follows that the Indian state has taken a stance on these issues. It endorses the belief hat religion revolves around doctrinal truth.The secular state in India and elsewhere puts certain legal restrictions on religious conversion. Most importantly, it prohibits all forms of coercion in conversion. It says that religious conversion can take place by means of persuasion alone. But if one takes conversion from one religion to another to be a matter of persuasion, one must presuppose that religion involves the question of doctrinal truth.. One can be persuaded to convert only in so far as one accepts the truth of one religion as opposed to the falsity of another. Therefore, the secular state’s restriction on religious conversion again reveals it has taken a position on the question of whether or not religion is a matter of truth. It may not accept the truth claims of any one particular religion, but it does assume that religion revolves around truth claims. This conclusion shows that the failure to be neutral towards the issue of conversion is not speciﬁc to the Indian secularists. It is a general malfunction of the neutrality of the model of liberal secularism. Even when its theorists take a critical attitude towards proselytisation, they reproduce the theological assumption that religion revolves around truth and therefore support a principle of religious freedom that entails the freedom to convert.

Thanks for posting this here. I clicked the link yesterday and read the exchanges. It does seem that Rajiv Malhotra ji is against any idea of viewing non-Dharmic cultures and ideas through Dharmic categories. This is interesting, and worth discussing. A few months ago when I we new to twitter, I had sent him this blogpost of mine about subsuming some non-Dharmic fixations, after which I found he had blocked me! I wasn't sure at the time why I had been blocked, but now I guess it may be because of this stance.

I'm thinking that perhaps RM ji feels that - at least at this point in time - it is better for Indics to draw a line in the sand and separate certain types of memes from others. Perhaps at this point in time we as a society and our social discourse is not mature enough to make finer distinctions and deal with scale and perspective. It is quite probable that any attempt to subsume will lead to the familiar hodgepodge and lend validity to what ought not to be validated. Or alternatively it may cause a schism by allowing non-Dharmic memes backdoor entry into the Dharmic context. Experiments at subsuming have been done before, like Sikhism and Arya Samaj, and perhaps they were not successful enough due to lack of an educated critical mass, or absence of a flourishing network of Dharmic educational institutions. So my guess is that RM ji feels that attempts to insert such an attempt into the discourse at this point in time are premature.

Also, by drawing a line between liberal and comprehensive Dharmic memes and non-liberal non-Dharmic memes, the purva-paksha and Othering process can be a great tool to weed out the non-liberal and ill-conceived memes that encrust Indic society itself. That would be a big gain. That's my 2 cents on why RM ji has this stance. Would be nice if someone could have him comment on it directly.

Also, by drawing a line between liberal and comprehensive Dharmic memes and non-liberal non-Dharmic memes, the purva-paksha and Othering process can be a great tool to weed out the non-liberal and ill-conceived memes that encrust Indic society itself. That would be a big gain. That's my 2 cents on why RM ji has this stance. Would be nice if someone could have him comment on it directly.

I've been attempting that for sometime now, and have stressed that aspect in a way on my blog too. Will try and put it very simply:1. Try and give a liberal Dharmic constitution. 2. Enable others to call themselves Dharmic even if they belong to Islam/Xtianity etc.3. Making understood that being high on the Dharmic ladder is about evolving and not absolutism. 4. When large sections of Muslims and Xtians identify with Dharmic tenet, softness and awareness of excluvist crudity in their tenet is exposed every bit by bit. 5. Will enable many to leave and embrace Dharmic panths.6. Will allow educational, professional institutions to openly utilize Dharmic tools like Yoga, meditation, invocations to enhance professional and educational abilities.7. At the same time hammer at economic progress in every way and make sure the fruits of development reach the worst off sections.

We have to realize India cannot survive much longer without bringing many excluvists into the Dharmic folds.

Your (our!) mission is noble, however without the political ergo financial (yes it's got to be financial) backing, there would be very limited change in the outlook of the society. The ability to spread the message needs state backing. IMO short term Hindutva necessary to eventually allow dharma to flourish. Isn't that many bloggers here have been saying? JMT.

I am puzzled at Rajiv Malhotra ji hard stance. Recently I have been following his live Q&A sessions. One of the callers was a Muslim from AP who wanted to know RMji's take on minorities who are Hindu at heart, but other wise follow their minority traditions and what advice he has for them.RMji said that being Hindu at heart isn't enough, one has to accept and respect everything that defines a Hindu, meaning: Reincarnation, respect for polytheism etc else the person even if Hindu cannot be considered as Hindu, there is no half hearted attempts at being a Hindu.

venug wrote:I am puzzled at Rajiv Malhotra ji hard stance. Recently I have been following his live Q&A sessions. One of the callers was a Muslim from AP who wanted to know RMji's take on minorities who are Hindu at heart, but other wise follow their minority traditions and what advice he has for them.RMji said that being Hindu at heart isn't enough, one has to accept and respect everything that defines a Hindu, meaning: Reincarnation, respect for polytheism etc else the person even if Hindu cannot be considered as Hindu, there is no half hearted attempts at being a Hindu.

he is correct. Forget punarjanma, charvakas do not believe in that. But mutual respect is essential.

Eko Sat Viprah bahuda vadanti - truth can be attained by various means and none of the ways are inferior to another - there may be shorter and longer routes in one's opinion but following islam leads to same final destination as bhakti of krishna murti. One may not personally to murti-puja, but one should not "tolerate" murtipujakas - one should respect the way of murti-pujakas as legitimate way of achieving supreme. Allah can be an ishta-devata and one may worship this ishtadevata by doing namaz five times a day. But they should believe and openly state that doing satyanarayana puja is no different. Hindus say it all the time. Abrahmics should say and openly declare that. that means they must reject the stance in their books which delegitimizes the "other" means.

One can only speculate on why Rajiv Malhotra took the stance he took. It could just as well be that due to an exorbitant experience of seeing appeasement-loving Hindus trying to integrate Islam and Christianity into the Bharatiya cultural narrative and thus without going into too much text, he simply proclaimed it as belonging to a similar kind of effort, and demanded its REJECTION.

The thing is Purva-Paksha really means, according to Rajiv Malhotra himself, a process of translating the external system, say some religious ideology, faithfully, as per their self-view, into Bharatiya cultural categories, and then analyzing the external system.

However at the same time Rajiv Malhotra is against this subsuming of say Islam and Christianity into our native categories, as he often reacts negatively! Perhaps he considers it just another effort at showing "sameness" and does not have the faith that others could do justice to subject matter!

I suspect sometimes that he may not be willing to let others proceed to take the process of Purva-Paksha further, outside his guidance, perhaps due to professional jealousy! It can happen to the best of us!

Also I feel that Rajiv Malhotra has done a lot of "sameness" of his own between different "religions"! He has reduced these ideological systems to simply competing systems of philosophical worldviews and truth-claims, without looking at them from their sociopolitical side or as carriers of imperialistic agendas and tools of power.

A big reason why I think Rajiv Malhotra is somewhat lost is exactly because his Purva-Paksha is limited to "religious" aspects.

Now I know that Rajiv Malhotra is quite aware of political machinations by imperialist groups sharing the goal of "Breaking India", but he has kept the politics of these movements isolated from their philosophical analysis.

Many insights in this thread and in "Understanding Islamic Society", contributed by all BRFites, start their journey where Rajiv Malhotra stopped his!

One thing one can't dispute is that Rajiv Malhotra has started people thinking into a different direction, probably just pushing people over the speed-breaker, they didn't seem to be able to cross-over on their own from their standing position.

Your (our!) mission is noble, however without the political ergo financial (yes it's got to be financial) backing, there would be very limited change in the outlook of the society. The ability to spread the message needs state backing. IMO short term Hindutva necessary to eventually allow dharma to flourish. Isn't that many bloggers here have been saying? JMT.

So true, saar. I think what Harbans saar is asking will happen automatically if there is state support and finances(Artha). Dharma needs Artha is a well known understanding.

Knowledge gives humility. From humility comes the ability to perform activities well. From the ability to perform activities well, one earns wealth. Wealth give the ability to follow Dharma, from which flows happiness.

venug wrote:I am puzzled at Rajiv Malhotra ji hard stance. Recently I have been following his live Q&A sessions. One of the callers was a Muslim from AP who wanted to know RMji's take on minorities who are Hindu at heart, but other wise follow their minority traditions and what advice he has for them.RMji said that being Hindu at heart isn't enough, one has to accept and respect everything that defines a Hindu, meaning: Reincarnation, respect for polytheism etc else the person even if Hindu cannot be considered as Hindu, there is no half hearted attempts at being a Hindu.

Saar,I think Rajiv saar is right. 'Hindhu at heart' is very vague. What does it mean? How to define and quantify it? Anyone can start claiming that in their heart they are Hindhu but refuse to follow Hindhu rituals and ideas. And if some one is really, passionately 'Hindhu at heart', then what stops them from following Hindhu rituals and ideas?

Atri wrote:

venug wrote:I am puzzled at Rajiv Malhotra ji hard stance. Recently I have been following his live Q&A sessions. One of the callers was a Muslim from AP who wanted to know RMji's take on minorities who are Hindu at heart, but other wise follow their minority traditions and what advice he has for them.RMji said that being Hindu at heart isn't enough, one has to accept and respect everything that defines a Hindu, meaning: Reincarnation, respect for polytheism etc else the person even if Hindu cannot be considered as Hindu, there is no half hearted attempts at being a Hindu.

he is correct. Forget punarjanma, charvakas do not believe in that. But mutual respect is essential.

Eko Sat Viprah bahuda vadanti - truth can be attained by various means and none of the ways are inferior to another - there may be shorter and longer routes in one's opinion but following islam leads to same final destination as bhakti of krishna murti. One may not personally to murti-puja, but one should not "tolerate" murtipujakas - one should respect the way of murti-pujakas as legitimate way of achieving supreme. Allah can be an ishta-devata and one may worship this ishtadevata by doing namaz five times a day. But they should believe and openly state that doing satyanarayana puja is no different. Hindus say it all the time. Abrahmics should say and openly declare that. that means they must reject the stance in their books which delegitimizes the "other" means.

Atri saar,no, no, no. I think what you are saying is completely against what Rajiv saar is saying or even what most Hindhu texts say. Infact, most people who claim to represent Hindhus say exactly what you are saying and that is the root cause for so-called dhimminess in Hindhus. Rajiv saar seems to be actually opposing this particular stand.

First and foremost, viprah bahudha vadhanthi does not extend to non-vaidhik ideologies. So, it does not extend to chaarvaakas or other atheists. As far as I understand, the definition of atheism in Hindhu texts is the 'one who does not believe in Vedhas'.

You are confusing 'viprah bahudha vadhanthi' with 'sarva pantha sama-bhaava'. The critical difference between these two is 'bahudha/multiple' and 'sarva/all'. Vaidhik quotation says 'bahudha/multiple' are allowed and acknowledged by the experts. Gandhism and its derivatives say 'sarva/all' are to be treated as same same. Both are completely different and should not be confused with each other.

This trend of quoting 'Viprah bahudha vadhanthi' seems to have started with Swami Vivekananda. But, his audience was amirkhans. And he attacked the ideology of 'sin' which is central to X-ist in the same speech. So, it seems to me that he was doing some complex psy-ops. But, when people say it to Hindhus to support secularism, then they make the mistake. Its important to understand who the audience are and what the message is.

The multiple paths that are allowed by Hindhuism are all already part of Hindhuism. Those paths(including chaarvaaka) that are not part of Hindhuism are not covered by 'viprah bahudha vadhanthi'. They are adharma. They cannot be treated same as dharma. Treating dharma and adharam with sama-bhaava(as equal equal) is wrong according to Hindhuism.

Does that mean exclusivity? Yep. It means exclusivity. Then what is inclusive about Hindhuism? Hindhuism is inherently inclusive because all creatures are considered as inherently divine. This was also touched upon by Swami Vivekananda in that very speech where he mentions viprah bahudha vadhanthi. He says that Vedhas address people as 'Amruthasya puthrah' i.e. immortal children. So, all creatures are inherently divine and descendents of the same divine and immortal. In simple words, one divine pervades all creatures. That is the source of inclusivity of Hindhuism.

If the same divine permeates all creatures, then He/She is not going to favor/disfavor anyone over the other unless they have earned by their own actions. This leads to karma theory. Karma theory leads to reincarnations theory. Reincarnation leads to need for liberation.

Then the question is 'if all creatures are inherently divine, then why do they commit wrongs and suffer misery'. So, it gets explained by ignorance/wrong knowledge or avidhya. So, the solution for liberation is gyanam or knowledge. What knowledge? That one is inherently divine.

Then the question is, 'if they are inherently divine, then they must have had full knowledge when they started out. So, why did they commit mistakes in the first place.' That gets explained by Maya/Prakruthi/Kama theory.

The critical difference is that Hindhuism preaches God/Goddess omni-present and without favor or bias towards anyone. He/She only gives results for people's actions. Good actions beget good results and bad actions lead to bad results. Praying to God/Goddess is also considered a good action and will lead to good results.

Most other ideologies give up the omni-present part and project their God/Goddess as a limited entity...more like a super-human entity with enormous powers but still limited in time and place. This leads to various derivations that end up with exclusivity.

harbans wrote:We have to realize India cannot survive much longer without bringing many excluvists into the Dharmic folds.

Absolutely. This must be a primary focus. Full and wholehearted conversion and immersion.

Agree much with JohneeG garu. Atri ji, Hinduism is not devoid of hierarchy (taaratamya) at all, nor is it casual about nomenclatures. That emphasis on relativising every hierarchy and every Name as a primary ideological focus became an obsession when erstwhile heterodox sects rushed in to hog new legitimacy within monastic institutions at certain points in post-Buddhist Hindu history. In fact it was the Buddhists who had an overdrawn relativistic view. Basically it seems that the Vratyascame to dominate Hinduism rather than the Vedics. Whereas in the Veda, the Vratyas are either looked upon with some fascination as curious, experimenting dropouts on the margins of society, or are treated with some disapproval if they inject their unhinged, wandering, speculative attitudes too deep into the mainstream. Hinduism has unfortunately become more Vratya than Vedic. The ratio has to be reset.

RajeshA ji, I think as long as Hindus are basically reacting to a threat-perception about their old encrusted "identity", and are in an emotional tone typified by whining, self-pity, resentment, anger, traditionalist 'pride', etc., about events in the past...any attempt at subsuming etc. is a step in the direction of eventually succumbing. Only when Hindus discover a real relevant meaning, purpose and value for today's world in present time, with an eye on the future and resolving global problems...only then can they be aggressive preachers to convert others wholly by demonstrating the superiority of what they have and also by acknowledging the good that others may possess in some degree. Its pretty clear where most Hindus (esp. Hindutva) stand right now - the former case. So its a matter of emotional tone. Below 'Boredom', every "action" or "initiative" actually seems to lead more towards non-survival in the long run. Because below 'Boredom' we are essentially reactive creatures. Only above 'Boredom' can we be truly thoughtful and creative creatures, and that is when action and initiative has a survival value that is greater than its (self-)destructive value.

venug wrote:I am puzzled at Rajiv Malhotra ji hard stance. Recently I have been following his live Q&A sessions. One of the callers was a Muslim from AP who wanted to know RMji's take on minorities who are Hindu at heart, but other wise follow their minority traditions and what advice he has for them.RMji said that being Hindu at heart isn't enough, one has to accept and respect everything that defines a Hindu, meaning: Reincarnation, respect for polytheism etc else the person even if Hindu cannot be considered as Hindu, there is no half hearted attempts at being a Hindu.

Saar,I think Rajiv saar is right. 'Hindhu at heart' is very vague. What does it mean? How to define and quantify it? Anyone can start claiming that in their heart they are Hindhu but refuse to follow Hindhu rituals and ideas. And if some one is really, passionately 'Hindhu at heart', then what stops them from following Hindhu rituals and ideas?

johneeG garu,

Over the course of this thread, over several posts, I've tried to introspect and dwell into what it means to be "Hindu"!

My suggestion was to do strict terminological differentiation between Hindu, Sanatana Dharma, and Dharma!

Hindu Dharma - Indic resistance to political & military domination of Bharat by foreign imperialistic ideologies and powers and their efforts at overwriting of Bharatiya Sanskriti. Preservation and strengthening of Bharatiya Sabhyata, Bharatiya Sanskriti, Bharatiya Rashtra and Rule of Dharma over Bharat!

Defining of "Hindu" in any other way, especially one which requires knowledge and abidance with Sanatana Dharma, causes severe hurt to the Hindu cause, as it basically shuts out all "Hindus" who were

- brought up in Macaulayite education system, - belong to historically backward jatis and thus had no possibility of guidance,- not Āstika,- confused,- not interested,

and thus make them easy pickings for mullahs, missionaries and marxists.

There would be many out there who would consider themselves diehard Hindus, but may not be familiar with that many aspects of Sanatan Dharma.

Even when its theorists take a critical attitude towards proselytisation, they reproduce the theological assumption that religion revolves around truth and therefore support a principle of religious freedom that entails the freedom to convert.[/color]

venug: Thanks. The passage quoted is an excellent concise demolition of the idea of liberal secularism. Only problem I have with that line of argument is if one accepts that line of argument, then one has to reject conversion altogether. The wider implication is that there is no religion itself.

I realize that what JohneeG and Atri ji were talking about were priestcraft and about general cultural attitudes, respectively. Both have their place, of course.

Re: your classification, it reminds me of the 3 terms used by earlier Indians to classify men: 1. The 'enlightened', 2. The 'practitioners', 3. The 'disgusting' (i.e., those who don't have any practice or understanding, not particularly interested either, but do subscribe to social identities.)

I was reading a little bit about Ganesha worship in Japan in the 11th century AD.

How did it reach there? As far as I know there were no "Hindu" missionaries. We are told that the Chinese to India who came were "Buddhists", as were the Indians who ventured to China.

Ganesha reached Japan because of the accompanying "knowledge system" which included what we call "Buddhism" and what we call "Hinduism". Without proselytization, people took it up; it must have spoken to them and seemed relevant to them. For the last several centuries, the Indian knowledge system has not been having knowledge production at an adequate rate. People have to ground themselves deeply in the traditions AND bring it into the modern age and produce the knowledge and insights and wisdom that naturally attract people. Not an easy task, but it is the only course we have.

Us VS Them is a start and we see the "difference" in Modi'a rise to lead india . rest of the exceptionalism will come naturally with the rise of economic and military might of Hindia. From Ankara to J'Burgh to Asuratalia , we must hold them by the Baals so their heart and mind follow the pressure point.

Agnimitra wrote:Re: your classification, it reminds me of the 3 terms used by earlier Indians to classify men: 1. The 'enlightened', 2. The 'practitioners', 3. The 'disgusting' (i.e., those who don't have any practice or understanding, not particularly interested either, but do subscribe to social identities.)

The division between 'enlightened', 'practitioners', 'disgusting' may not so simple. It depends on the reference frame.

If the reference frame is Sanskriti than I guess, 'Hindu' would be of the third kind, but what if the reference frame is Sabhyata, or Deshbhakti? In that case 'Hindu' would be the 'enlightened' as he understands the need of the hour - there is a time for the Vedas, and there is time for the Sword!

If one were then to consider the ideal profiles, that would probably place RSS as 'enlightened', Bajrang Dal, VHP and Indian Armed Forces as 'practitioners', and 'common Hindu' as 'disgusting'.

Perhaps one can make the prerequisites somewhat lenient, in which case one discovers a different division among 'Hindus'.

those who believe in the above Hindu ideal of resistance without compromise

those who believe in the above Hindu ideal of resistance but think 'pragmatically' that solving the problem of the 'Other' is a long-term process

those who identify with the social identity 'Hindu', are not aware of what it entails, and see merit in 'peaceful coexistence' and 'tolerance'

those who call themselves 'Hindu' due to their heritage, but feel culturally attracted to the 'Other' to an extent that one is willing to dilute the 'Hindu ideal'

those who call themselves 'Hindu' for the sole purpose of serving the 'Other' from inside the 'Hindu' tent

Yes, we discussed this on twitter yesterday.. ramaY put me under fire for this post..

Posting the clarification here, one which I reasoned with him there. and then he seemed to agree with me (more or less). Here is the gist of that exchange.

Atri-Raama Samvaada wrote:Just because Sat (truth is one), it doesn't make all paths (Vadanti) & preachers/prophets (Viprah) same. But, not all prophets and preachers are "Vipras". According to Yaska rishi - जन्मना जायते शूद्रः संस्कारात्‌ द्विजं उच्यते. वेद पाठात्‌ भवेत्‌ विप्रः ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः... Profound scholarship in relevant matters makes one a "Vipra", not bloodthirsty fanaticism OR hallucinations. So if we accept that Abrahamic prophets are not Viprahs then secularism (or its ******** alternative pluralism) fails. I would, however, extend that to all dharmik aka Indic traditions, irrespective of their allegiance to Vedas. Just because Guru Nanak OR Vardhamaana Mahavir OR Siddhartha Gautama rejected vedvakya as valid pramaaNa, I will not illegitimize their experience. For me, they remain "Vipra" and furthermore, "braahmanas" (ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः).

There has to be a way of separating milk from water and then drinking the milk, leaving water behind - as far as abrahmic experiences and ideas are concerned. This is what I meant in my previous post..

In his classic 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', Edward Gibbons devotes considerable attention to the religious-philosophical currents prevalent at the time of the beginning of that decay. In it, he points out the dry, speculative, aloof and cynical philosophical trends that were fashionable among the educated elites in stark contrast with the devotional and somewhat superstitious attitudes of the masses whom they looked down upon. This internal cynicism and disconnect between the intellectual and emotive streams within the people and the body politic as a whole was a symptom of the beginning of the end of true creative energy in that civilization.

Whatever be the case with Hindutva political leaders and thinkers, in my humble opinion the inclination to identify with "atheism" and their aloofness from the kumbha-mela of popular Hinduism could backfire in other ways - at a civilizational level - if their intellectual stances and hearts are not tempered with a real adherence and connection to the processes of spiritual development. In this respect, it appears that only Narendra Modi stands apart from the others at this time. In a marketplace of identities, his Asmita is seems a bit more connected than any other.

Secularism as a joke The writer is a Middle East based writer and editor of ‘Caravan’, an online news magazine

NDTV’s Barkha Dutt wrote a fine piece for Hindustan Times last week. Bemoaning the continuing degeneration of Indian politics coupled with the rise of the Right, she voiced eminent jurist Fali Nariman’s concerns raised in the recent National Integration Council meet in Delhi. Meeting in the wake of the Muzaffarnagar riots, Nariman shook everyone with his moving intervention when he said, “I was born in a pluralistic, tolerant India, but I fear I may not die in one.”The feisty NDTV journalist goes on to argue that long years of political hypocrisy have weakened the idea of secularism. So much so that this once lofty ideal, enshrined in Indian constitution, has become a joke and almost a curse word to be jeered at by the Right. She blames the opportunism of politicians like Mulayam Singh Yadav, once called ‘Maulana’ for his proximity to Muslims, for this state of affairs. But let us not lose sight of the fact that it was the Congress that invented and perfected this fine art of tokenism, paying endless lip service to minorities while doing precious little to improve their lives. Apparently, it was the BJP patriarch Lal Krishna Advani who first came up with the word ‘pseudo-secularism’ to describe the Congress’ so-called appeasement of Muslims while his more ingenious protégé Narendra Modi would spell it as ‘sickularism’. And if pundits and pollsters are to be believed, he would be India’s prime minister in less than two months!If the Right has managed to turn secularism, once the proud cornerstone of Indian democracy and its defining identity, into an expletive today, it has been ably aided and assisted by the party that has ruled India for the better part of its independent existence as well as its other fellow travellers. They have used it repeatedly and shamelessly to cover their naked ambition and bankruptcy of principles.Twelve years ago, Ram Vilas Paswan won millions of hearts when he stormed out of the NDA coalition led by Atal Behari Vajpayee, giving up his ministry over the 2002 pogrom in Gujarat. Today, hemmed in from all sides in Bihar and at home from his insecure son, he has embraced Modi. He cited Gujarat as the “model of good governance where no riots have taken place since 2002” at the first public meeting with Modi in Patna. Paswan and son still insist that they remain committed to ‘secularism’ even as Modi trashed it and drove it into the ground again and again at the same rally. One week, Sharad Power of the Nationalist Congress Party, one of the sharpest and wiliest minds in Indian politics, bats for Modi citing the so-called clean chit given by the special investigation team. Another convenient week finds him trashing the Gujarat leader in the name of secularism and all that is holy. He could now conveniently recall the carnage that went on for months on the Gujarat leader’s watch. From dumb cosmetic gestures like hosting iftar parties to wearing skull caps to offering false promises and empty rhetoric, every political party – from the Congress to the Samajwadi Party to BSP and from Lalu and Mayawati to Nitesh – is guilty of abusing it. None of these champions of secularism and minorities have anything concrete to show for their long years in power, save perhaps the glory of their own extended families and clans.Secularism is not photo ops with Muslims during elections or Ramadan and Eid or visits to dargahs and mushairas waxing eloquent about the lyrical beauty of Urdu and its contribution to freedom struggle. Added to this is the faux sympathy and rhetoric of the so-called secular parties invoking Muslims and secularism whenever it suits them, as if secularism was the concern and headache of the Muslims alone.And the BJP and extended Hindutva family have over the years exploited this whole farce as ‘Muslim appeasement’ and ‘vote bank politics’ to project themselves as the guardians and well-wishers of Hindus and India. More ominously, the fiction about the pampering of Muslims has poisoned Hindu-Muslim relations fuelling a silent wave of hostility and antagonism against a hopelessly marginalised and dispossessed minority. The devastating consequences of this dangerous, insidious game are seen in the harvest of hatred reaped from time to time, from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh. ( Nou we know why they always accused Modi of Polarisation and feared him)No wonder secularism has become the most abused word in Indian politics today. So much so, in the words of American Indologist Ronald Inden, that the poorly educated Indian ‘intelligentsia’ has today come to identify the Indian brand of secularism with anti-Hinduism and appeasement of Muslims.Yet it was once the guiding spirit of Indian democracy and constitution. Jawaharlal Nehru and other leading lights of the Independence movement understood that India embraced secularism not in the European sense of the word, which meant rejection of all religion and disassociation of state with faith. In the Indian context and under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and other luminaries of the freedom movement many of whom were all proud of their faiths, secularism was adapted as something that respected and embraced all faiths and favoured none.It was pluralism Indian style, celebrating the diversity of the republic in all its resplendent glory. More importantly, it has served the nation well and kept it united defying its impossible complexities and inherent fault lines in a volatile neighbourhood.F. India’s strength lies in its pluralism, and not in being drowned and overwhelmed by one single, dominant, overpowering hue. Secularism is not a luxury for India; it is a necessity and vital one at that. As for Muslims, I have said this before and I say it again. They need no special treatment from anyone, not from the Congress, nor from the BJP or other assorted parties. All they need is their fair share and part in the India story.

Such liberal views are part and parcel of pluralism. If someone writes such things about Saudi majority and Saudi royals in Saudi, who knows what laws would be applied in the special land of peace and faithfuls - this should also be known by liberals who spread deception and lies against their own perceived demons under various labels.

I don't think that it is really the case of a disconnect between intellectual and emotive streams, between head and heart. It is simply that the Ishta Devta of ostensibly the "head" is not the same as that of the "heart".

For Hindutvavadis, the Ishta Devta is Bharat Mata. For Hinduists, the Ishta Devta is someone from the vast pantheon of manifestations of the Supreme!

The Hindutvavadis keep telling the Hinduists, that without the process, without Bharatiya Sabhyata, there would be no product, Bharatiya Sanskriti. So let's save Bharatiya Sabhyata and do not get lost in the Maya of Bharatiya Sanskriti, for without the former the latter would fade. The Hinduists keep telling Hindutvavadis that it suffices to immerse oneself in Bharatiya Sanskriti, as the Supreme is eternal and thus transcendental to Bharatiya Sabhyata.

The gulf between the Hindutvavadis and Hinduists is bridged by calling both as Hindus.

It just so happens that NaMo doesn't see any gulf and is both Hindutvavadi and Hinduist.

RajeshA wrote:It just so happens that NaMo doesn't see any gulf and is both Hindutvavadi and Hinduist.

And a very welcome happenstance it is!

Yes, I agree. My intent was not to criticize one or the other 'side' you referred to, but rather to point out that the dialectic between those two sides can come loose and disperse what it is meant to bind, unless there are people who combine them both within themselves and lead the tribe forward.

I don't think that it is really the case of a disconnect between intellectual and emotive streams, between head and heart. It is simply that the Ishta Devta of ostensibly the "head" is not the same as that of the "heart".

For Hindutvavadis, the Ishta Devta is Bharat Mata. For Hinduists, the Ishta Devta is someone from the vast pantheon of manifestations of the Supreme!

The Hindutvavadis keep telling the Hinduists, that without the process, without Bharatiya Sabhyata, there would be no product, Bharatiya Sanskriti. So let's save Bharatiya Sabhyata and do not get lost in the Maya of Bharatiya Sanskriti, for without the former the latter would fade. The Hinduists keep telling Hindutvavadis that it suffices to immerse oneself in Bharatiya Sanskriti, as the Supreme is eternal and thus transcendental to Bharatiya Sabhyata.

The gulf between the Hindutvavadis and Hinduists is bridged by calling both as Hindus.

It just so happens that NaMo doesn't see any gulf and is both Hindutvavadi and Hinduist.

RajeshA Saar,what is Bhaarathiya Sabhyatha? What is Bhaarathiya Sanskruthi? And what is the difference and similarity between them? I ask because I am unable to grasp what you are saying.

I don't think that it is really the case of a disconnect between intellectual and emotive streams, between head and heart. It is simply that the Ishta Devta of ostensibly the "head" is not the same as that of the "heart".

For Hindutvavadis, the Ishta Devta is Bharat Mata. For Hinduists, the Ishta Devta is someone from the vast pantheon of manifestations of the Supreme!

The Hindutvavadis keep telling the Hinduists, that without the process, without Bharatiya Sabhyata, there would be no product, Bharatiya Sanskriti. So let's save Bharatiya Sabhyata and do not get lost in the Maya of Bharatiya Sanskriti, for without the former the latter would fade. The Hinduists keep telling Hindutvavadis that it suffices to immerse oneself in Bharatiya Sanskriti, as the Supreme is eternal and thus transcendental to Bharatiya Sabhyata.

The gulf between the Hindutvavadis and Hinduists is bridged by calling both as Hindus.

It just so happens that NaMo doesn't see any gulf and is both Hindutvavadi and Hinduist.

RajeshA Saar,what is Bhaarathiya Sabhyatha? What is Bhaarathiya Sanskruthi? And what is the difference and similarity between them? I ask because I am unable to grasp what you are saying.

PS: Why no posts in OIT thread these days?

johneeG ji,

These terms are not coined by me, but which I often use to do a crucial differentiation.

Bharatiya Sabhyata: One would translate it with Indian Civilization. This is the process! Basically it refers to the unified history of Bharat including all the people, the tribes, the empires, the kingdoms, their politics and all the turning of Kaalchakra on Bharat. This is the Timespace occupied by what we call Bharat. And the thread which weaves all this together is the geography of Bharat, the sense of Rashtra among the people of Bharat, and Dharma, the fundamental principle and ideal which has acted as the sovereign over the thinking of Bharatiyas and thus of the Rashtra. Bharatiya Itihaas is part and parcel of Bharatiya Sabhyata.

Bharatiya Sanskriti: One would translate it with Indian Culture. This is the product. All the Dharmic texts, all our scientific accomplishments, all our philosophy, all our literature, our architecture, our Samskaras, our Social Law Codes, our insights into the Transcendental, our spirituality, all this is Bharatiya Sanskriti.

Bharatiya Sanskriti can be exported. Other non-Indic people can adopt aspects of Bharatiya Sanskriti as and how they like. These non-Indics however may not give a damn about Bharatiya Sabhyata.

Preservation of Bharatiya Sabhyata means reinstating Dharma over Bharat, and reconnecting modern India with the pre-Islamic pre-corrupted Ancient Bharat. That would lead to the rebirth of Jagatguru Bharat, an independent political-military-economic-scientific power in the world. That is the challenge taken up by Hindutvavadis. This is what bothers other powers.

Preservation of the social and "religious" aspects of Bharatiya Sanskriti, is the portfolio for Hinduists. This per se doesn't bother others except that it slows the conversion to foreign predatory ideologies and thus makes the management of Bharatiyas by external powers and ideologies somewhat difficult and long.

Cross-posting a post by muraliravi from "Statewide and National runup to 2014 General elections" Thread

Rajesh ji,

There is a smart democratic way of putting down regional parties and taking India towards a true democracy. We should all strive to eliminate this First Past the Post system. We need to have run-off elections. With the way elections are held today, 25% vote if enough to win polls and it really takes away the real issues of development and economics and instead gets parties to focus on caste etc... It is this FPPS system that leads to unabashed minority appeasement. In my opinion, if BJP can implement run-off election concept in India, it will save itself as a party and lead India towards to a true bi-polar system at a constituency level. We cannot realistically (and should not force it that way) have only 2 parties nationwide. In TN, it can be ADMK vs DMK, but they need to win 50% votes in each seat to win the election.

There are 2 ways of Implementing this

Method 1

1. General Elections (LS Polls) should be conducted in 1 phase or at mac 2 phases nationwide. All State polls should be conducted in one phase within the state. If more than one state goes to election within 2 months of each other, those polls should be conducted simultaneously.

2. Once counting in each LS/VS seat is over, the top two candidates should be declared and the top 2 contenders should contest elections again if the top candidate has not secured more than 50% vote. This 2nd round of polling will again be a single phase poll nationwide across all seats where the 1st candidate did not secure more than 50% of the vote in that seat.

3. Voting needs to be made compulsory. In a country like India, people dont like to pay fines if they dont vote, So the reverse should be implemented, if you vote, you will be 0.1% tax benefit, 0.1% lower loan interest rate vagera..

This way, at least at a constituency level, we will bring in bi polar nature. Over a period of time, it will take shape nationally. Meaning, southern states may abandon local parties and go for national parties.

Method 2.

LS/VS Polls, should have voting options. Preference 1, 2, 3.. and so on. That is an Instant Run off. This way, the 2nd round of voting is eliminated. If the top choice has less than 50% vote, then the algorithm, will transfer votes of 3rd or 4th choice backers to the 1st or 2nd candidate based on their preference order.

But Method 2 may confuse the indian voter and so I propose method 1.

The key to Method 1 is ensuring that polls are a one day or at best 2 day affair. State assembly polls should be 1 day affairs period.

While this may not cut short a Mamta in the short run (the run off will be between her and left), it will help India in the long run. It will avoid all manchurians, AAP, MNS, Vijaykanth, Chiranjeevi etcc.

It is also good for policy structure, politicians will never be able to please 50%+ of a constituency by playing the caste card, they will be forced to talk the development language, and they can no more do minority appeasement in most seats.

This is not a new concept by any means, run off election concept exists in many countries, only issue is it exists in presidential systems where it is easy to conduct runoff's. But we have to figure it out. In fact some municipal ward elections in india are instant run off elections.

The Hindutvavadis keep telling the Hinduists, that without the process, without Bharatiya Sabhyata, there would be no product, Bharatiya Sanskriti. So let's save Bharatiya Sabhyata and do not get lost in the Maya of Bharatiya Sanskriti, for without the former the latter would fade. The Hinduists keep telling Hindutvavadis that it suffices to immerse oneself in Bharatiya Sanskriti, as the Supreme is eternal and thus transcendental to Bharatiya Sabhyata.

The Hindi metaphor, sone pe suhaga (borax on gold) refers to an ideal amalgam of two things - one intrinsically valuable, the other worthless by itself but possessing some useful reactive properties with the thing of value. Gold in native state is a dull metal that has no glitter or resemblance to what we know as gold. It gains its aesthetic brilliance and repute when borax is added to it, with heat.

In a genuine annealing process of the self or of nation-building, the hard dichotomy between 'sacred' and so-called 'profane' melts away in favour of dovetailing and then amalgamation. This has been described by the paradoxical term yukta-vairagya (harnessed in renunciation) in the terminology of the bhakti shāstras. Amalgamation of the numinous and the phenomenal applies as much to the nation (rāshtra) as it does to the individual. Some observations of the characteristics of these two configurations (corrections and additions are welcome):

Sarva Dharm Sambhava= in the sense they all talk or striggle to talk about "God" as well "right & wrongs".It dont men they have gotton the "tatva" and how deep. There is differene in depth, degree and description. Baby/ Infant swims in the Pool, using all sort of help and normally keep doing Number one and Two in dogmatic diaper to get attention while adult swims, dive and do much without help in variety of way as he has explored and found the Essence , in fact act and feel like is one with water. (Disclaimer: I dont know how to swim )

Roberto Giori, owner of the Lausanne-based company De La Rue Giori, boarded Flight 814 after a holiday in Katmandu with his companion Cristina Calabresi. De La Rue Giori, which Giori inherited from his father, happens to control 90% of the world's currency-printing business.

The week-long ordeal had an unexpected impact on the currency tycoon. What I experienced on the plane has changed me forever, said Giori. I don't know what it is: Hinduism, the so-called fatalism of Indians.But the way the passengers stayed so calm throughout, even the children, was exemplary. I told myself, if the plane had been full of Italians or French, it would have been very different.